No, no it's really not.... In a way, yeah, every officer is basing their operations on the desire to send everyone of his/her firefighters home, but they aren't making a go-no go decision like yours.

Jim-Bob's mortgage isn't on my mind. Taking Jim-Bob inside (WHEN WARRANTED), knocking down and extinguishing the fire, and mitigating the emergency for which we were called in a SAFE and effective manner so Jim-Bob can go home is what's on my mind.

The problem is your priorities. They are so beyond fu*ked up that I don't understand why your members still allow you to be in a position of influence over your department.

You call keeping member safety THE priority f**ked up.

I think that should always be our primary focus.

If I can keep the members safe and mitigate the incident, great.

If I have to put the members health at risk to mitigate the incident, we will have to find another mitigation technique. Or the incident simply may not be mitigated.

If I have to put the members health at risk to mitigate the incident, we will have to find another mitigation technique. Or the incident simply may not be mitigated.

That's a cop out. As has been stated before, firefighting is inherently dangerous. You can't remove that danger by refusing to make entry unless the conditions are jussssstttttt right. All the members on my department know that it's an inherently dangerous activity, but imagine that, they still want to do it.

The members health is at risk as soon as the pager goes off. Before they even make it to the station and get bombarded with your safety sally bullschitt. Even if they drive the exact same way they would if there wasn't a fire call, even if they follow the speed limit and all traffic signs, there still putting themselves at risk because there are ALWAYS outside forces that could throw a wrench into things. They could get into their car, pull safely onto the roadway, and get schmucked by a semi or a dumptruck. That doesn't mean people just hide in their home everyday.

Member safety is absolutely a priority, and a case can be argued that it is THE priority. However that doesn't mean that we automatically commit to exterior operations because the sun is out today.

Considering you've stated that you'll write structures off based on the construction type before you've even left the building proves to me even more that everything you post here are excuses and cop outs.

"A fire department that writes off civilians faster than an express line of 6 reasons or less is not progressive, it's dangerous, because it's run by fear. Fear does not save lives, it endangers them." -- Lt. Ray McCormack FDNY

La, Do you have a 5 point restraint system in your personal vehicle? Do you wear a fire resistant NASCAR suit when you're driving? How about a helmet? No? Why not? More people are killed in automobile accidents in a month in this country than firefighters are killed in a year. How are you going to provide for your family if you get run over by a drunk semi driver?

How about a bullet proof vest? Do you wear one of those everyday? Do you, as a citizen, lawfully carry a firearm on a daily basis? No? Why not? Far, FAR more people are killed by guns in a year than firefighters are killed at incidents. How are you going to provide for your family if you get gunned down?

See where your argument falls apart yet? Not only is firefighting inherently dangerous, this thing called "life" is inherently dangerous, and always ends in death. If you want to take all these precautions on the fire scene and use them as excuses not to act because you might break a nail, why don't you take other precautions in your ever day life?

"A fire department that writes off civilians faster than an express line of 6 reasons or less is not progressive, it's dangerous, because it's run by fear. Fear does not save lives, it endangers them." -- Lt. Ray McCormack FDNY

Until a a self-proclaimed safety "czar" is going to do something to address the number one killer of firefighters, his opinion is full of sh it. Dance around and make excuses of epic proportions to pretend to be all about member safety, and then turn around and dance and make every excuse in the world to not address health/welfare...makes sense?

And how many times did you attend training without compensation outside of your full time job???

Wait for it .... You didn't have to.

I guess you really don't have a dog in this fight then.

Several times. Paid for out of my own pocket, to the tune of several thousands of dollars. I also had to work some forty-eight hour shifts in order to be able to do it, as the city didn't release me to attend. There were quite a few guys that went with me, as well. This meant time away from family for the training and then more time away in order to pay back the time to be off shift.

So take the attitude and stick it. Face it, the only "dog" in this "fight" is a mutt-you.

Several times. Paid for out of my own pocket, to the tune of several thousands of dollars. I also had to work some forty-eight hour shifts in order to be able to do it, as the city didn't release me to attend. There were quite a few guys that went with me, as well. This meant time away from family for the training and then more time away in order to pay back the time to be off shift.

So take the attitude and stick it. Face it, the only "dog" in this "fight" is a mutt-you.

That's a cop out. As has been stated before, firefighting is inherently dangerous. You can't remove that danger by refusing to make entry unless the conditions are jussssstttttt right. All the members on my department know that it's an inherently dangerous activity, but imagine that, they still want to do it.

The members health is at risk as soon as the pager goes off. Before they even make it to the station and get bombarded with your safety sally bullschitt. Even if they drive the exact same way they would if there wasn't a fire call, even if they follow the speed limit and all traffic signs, there still putting themselves at risk because there are ALWAYS outside forces that could throw a wrench into things. They could get into their car, pull safely onto the roadway, and get schmucked by a semi or a dumptruck. That doesn't mean people just hide in their home everyday.

Member safety is absolutely a priority, and a case can be argued that it is THE priority. However that doesn't mean that we automatically commit to exterior operations because the sun is out today.

Considering you've stated that you'll write structures off based on the construction type before you've even left the building proves to me even more that everything you post here are excuses and cop outs.

Yes, stepping of of the front door has risk. Driving a car has risk. Eating McDonalds has risk. Yes, there is normal, everyday risk associated with normal everyday life.

Bit that is not the risk we are talking about. We are talking about assumed risk as a member of a fire department.

Never did I say that all fires are exterior fires, but on my VFD, given my staffing and response times, the majority of the fires, under my command, will likely be exterior fires. It's just the way that I see things.

This is a discussion that will never have a conclusion as we both have opinions that are incompatible with compromise or agreement.

Firefighting is as dangerous as we decide to make it. The risk that we take is driven by our decisions, and they are driven by what we each believe is the job of a firefighter.

Our decisions drive our actions. One can decide to do nothing. One can decide to go completely defensive. One can decide to go transitional or one can decide the go interior without an exterior transitional hit.

The IC can decide how passive or aggressive the operation will be.

And yes, those decisions are driven by what the department and the IC sees as the department's responsibilities.

Our decisions drive our actions. One can decide to do nothing. One can decide to go completely defensive. One can decide to go transitional or one can decide the go interior without an exterior transitional hit.

The IC can decide how passive or aggressive the operation will be.

And yes, those decisions are driven by what the department and the IC sees as the department's responsibilities.

So exactly is how that statement untrue?

When cowardice automatically drives you to make no decision other than to do nothing, it is an untrue statement.

Because sometimes the incident changes despite knowing all the available information.

I'll give you an example that happened to a couple of colleagues back in the 90's.

The call was for a fire in an electrical vault of a commercial center. 440V.

So the first onscene officer orders his firefighters to go into to fast attack but not do any active fire suppression. The onscene building engineer and utility company verified that power had been cut to the vault from the street. Guess what? It wasn't cut. The firefighters proceeded to apply 150gpm to an electrical vault fully charged at 440V. Of course the vault exploded inside a very confined space. It was literally a miracle that no one was injured or killed. Turned out the circuit breakers hadn't tripped and there was still a charge from the street to the vault.

So yes, your statement is untrue.

BTW, you complain about money and time as the reasons why vollie firefighters shouldn't be expected to train to the level of professionals. The hole in that argument is that reserve LEO's are required in CA to have the same certs as their full time counterparts. All of it done on their own time.

If someone can jump through those hoops to be a reserve LEO, there should be no problem with someone wanting to be a reserve firefighter. Unless they are a pathetic piece of crap like you.

Because sometimes the incident changes despite knowing all the available information.

I'll give you an example that happened to a couple of colleagues back in the 90's.

The call was for a fire in an electrical vault of a commercial center. 440V.

So the first onscene officer orders his firefighters to go into to fast attack but not do any active fire suppression. The onscene building engineer and utility company verified that power had been cut to the vault from the street. Guess what? It wasn't cut. The firefighters proceeded to apply 150gpm to an electrical vault fully charged at 440V. Of course the vault exploded inside a very confined space. It was literally a miracle that no one was injured or killed. Turned out the circuit breakers hadn't tripped and there was still a charge from the street to the vault.

So yes, your statement is untrue.

BTW, you complain about money and time as the reasons why vollie firefighters shouldn't be expected to train to the level of professionals. The hole in that argument is that reserve LEO's are required in CA to have the same certs as their full time counterparts. All of it done on their own time.

If someone can jump through those hoops to be a reserve LEO, there should be no problem with someone wanting to be a reserve firefighter. Unless they are a pathetic piece of crap like you.

Our decisions drive our actions. One can decide to do nothing. One can decide to go completely defensive. One can decide to go transitional or one can decide the go interior without an exterior transitional hit.

The IC can decide how passive or aggressive the operation will be.

And yes, those decisions are driven by what the department and the IC sees as the department's responsibilities.

So exactly is how that statement untrue?

It's untrue when you write off a building before even arriving on scene or you write a building off based solely on construction and nothing else.

It's untrue when you write off a building before even arriving on scene or you write a building off based solely on construction and nothing else.

Still the IC's decision as to how to act.

In that case, it would be the IC's decision to take either take defensive exterior actions only, or no action, therefor exposing his personnel to very minimal risk in the case of exterior ops or no risk in the case of no action.

In the end, the department can determine the risk based on what actions they decide to take.

In that case, it would be the IC's decision to take either take defensive exterior actions only, or no action, therefor exposing his personnel to very minimal risk in the case of exterior ops or no risk in the case of no action.

In the end, the department can determine the risk based on what actions they decide to take.

Bobby, you seriosuly cannot be this dense. You are not talking about arriving on scene, doing a 360, a size up, and THEN saying we will not enter due to xyz (which while I may disagree with your assessment, at least you did one). You are saying blanketly that there are occupancies that you will write off before you even arrive, and buildings you won't enter simply due to construction type. EXPLAIN what tactics course, or Incident Command course you took that supports that absolute drivel. The fact is the only reason for either of those tactics is the complete lack of command experience and the inability to make a fact based tactical decision based on what the incident shows you.

Bobby, you seriosuly cannot be this dense. You are not talking about arriving on scene, doing a 360, a size up, and THEN saying we will not enter due to xyz (which while I may disagree with your assessment, at least you did one). You are saying blanketly that there are occupancies that you will write off before you even arrive, and buildings you won't enter simply due to construction type. EXPLAIN what tactics course, or Incident Command course you took that supports that absolute drivel. The fact is the only reason for either of those tactics is the complete lack of command experience and the inability to make a fact based tactical decision based on what the incident shows you.

I have already discussed this several times.

There are buildings that are built to kill firefighters quickly and with minimum or no warning and in some cases with a minimum of fire. I will not commit my members to those buildings. It's really that simple. If you don't agree, fine.

The statement that I made was simply that firefighting is not necessarily an ultra hazardous activity. You disagreed.

My point was that firefighting is as hazardous as the IC wants to make it based on how he/she decides to act, or in some cases, not act.

Actions can range from absolutely none to interior operations, with an increasing level of danger as the operations become more interior-based.

So again, the level of hazard is very dependent on the department philosophy and/or the IC's approach.

There are buildings that are built to kill firefighters quickly and with minimum or no warning and in some cases with a minimum of fire. I will not commit my members to those buildings. It's really that simple. If you don't agree, fine.

Again, it is complete idiocy and counter to any stadard tactics to simply write off a building with no supporting reason too. By your nonsensical approach a trash can fire in the break room destroys the building and puts people out of work, most likely because the business closes. Nice work.

The statement that I made was simply that firefighting is not necessarily an ultra hazardous activity. You disagreed.

No, I said you simply cannot make firefighting 100% safe if you actually respond to a fire.

My point was that firefighting is as hazardous as the IC wants to make it based on how he/she decides to act, or in some cases, not act.

Especially if you write building off before you ever show up.

Actions can range from absolutely none to interior operations, with an increasing level of danger as the operations become more interior-based.

Nonsense, if you have written the building off before even arriving there are no options.

So again, the level of hazard is very dependent on the department philosophy and/or the IC's approach.